To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

Canadian Gaming News, Issue 40 (1997, August)

Canadian Gaming News, Issue 40 (1997, August) - Page 1

Canadian Gaming News
Issue 40 August, 1997
British Columbia RFP
Details Released
pending the release of the
British Columbia RFP
The just released ' Request For Pro-posals
- Destination and Charity Gam-ing
Facilities in the Province of
British Columbia' is refreshing in
that, unlike most of the New Demo-cratic
Party's recent gaming initia-tives,
it is comprehensive and appears
to have been given considerable
thought. This does not mean that all
the questions have been answered.
However, we do think that Lotteries
Advisory Committee ( LAC) chair, Pe-ter
Clark and his colleagues have
been deliberate in their actions and
have brought things about as far as
they can.
Positioning is a very important part of
this initiative on three accounts:
First, the government, at the direction
of the advisory committee, has tried to
diffuse the municipal opposition that
torpedoed past initiatives by offering
the municipalities a carrot - 116 of net
gaming income from each destination
facility. As you will read further on in
this issue, we hear that Ontario will
try the same approach but with less
money. We expect the theory behind
giving the municipalities a slice of the
action is that municipalities, once in
receipt of casino funding, will become
' hooked' and therefore less likely to
reverse their decisions.
Secondly, Peter Clark, in a July 31,
1997 letter to all municipalities and
regional districts, went to great
lengths to assure host municipalities
as well as adjacent municipalities that
they can say ' no'. The message here
is that you do not need to form opposi-tion
coalitions and make a big fuss
like you did before to stop this.
We've already surrendered and will
only proceed kith those municipali-ties
which indicate, by resolution,
that they want a casino or bingo
hall.
The third big positioning issue is
that the municipal profit sharing
agreement only applies to destina-tion
casinos, not to charity casinos.
This leads to several conclusions:
1) Proponents may have more trou-ble
getting municipal approval for a
new charity casino than for a new
destination casino. This, on the
other hand, could be mitigated by
getting the support of local charities.
2) The province is obviously think-ing
' destination' as opposed to
' charity'. 3) Present charity casino
operators, particularly those in the
lucrative lower mainland, may have
less competition than first thought
( feared).
Highlights of the the RFP:
municipalities must pass reso-lutions
saying they want a
new gaming facility. Silence
will be considered a negative
response,
municipalities that indicate
they want a casino or bingo
hall will participate in the
evaluation process. ( This is a
real improvement upon the
' Ontario process' where eval-uation
committees vanish
from sight and no one, includ-ing
the host municipality,
knows what is happening.
Municipalities each day par-ticipate
in the evaluation of
competing proposals for new
Ivan Sack
shopping malls, office towers,
and hotels: why not a casino or
bingo hall?),
no communities have been
identified as sites. Proponents
make this determination them-selves.
They are responsible
for demonstrating to LAC that
they have the support of the
host community and that they
have identified and dealt with
all concerns expressed by adja-cent
communities. Interest-ingly,
LAC determines whether
concerns raised by adjacent
communities are legitimate and
whether proponents have taken
sufficient action to address
them. This neatly side- steps
opposition from the City of
Vancouver which remains a
target market and would use an
' adjacent clause' to stop its
neighbours from opening gam-ing
facilities. Vancouver has,
for example, just refused a re-quest
from the Great Canadian
Casino Company for a 3,000 sq.
ft. extension to its downtown
Holiday Inn facility. The city
claimed Great Canadian was
short 3 1 parking spaces even
though the company said it was
prepared to lease 50 spaces
nearby,
casinos will be permitted to op-erate
14 hours a day, 365 days
per year,

The University of Lethbridge Library received permission from Ivan Sack to digitize and display this content.

Full-Text

Canadian Gaming News
Issue 40 August, 1997
British Columbia RFP
Details Released
pending the release of the
British Columbia RFP
The just released ' Request For Pro-posals
- Destination and Charity Gam-ing
Facilities in the Province of
British Columbia' is refreshing in
that, unlike most of the New Demo-cratic
Party's recent gaming initia-tives,
it is comprehensive and appears
to have been given considerable
thought. This does not mean that all
the questions have been answered.
However, we do think that Lotteries
Advisory Committee ( LAC) chair, Pe-ter
Clark and his colleagues have
been deliberate in their actions and
have brought things about as far as
they can.
Positioning is a very important part of
this initiative on three accounts:
First, the government, at the direction
of the advisory committee, has tried to
diffuse the municipal opposition that
torpedoed past initiatives by offering
the municipalities a carrot - 116 of net
gaming income from each destination
facility. As you will read further on in
this issue, we hear that Ontario will
try the same approach but with less
money. We expect the theory behind
giving the municipalities a slice of the
action is that municipalities, once in
receipt of casino funding, will become
' hooked' and therefore less likely to
reverse their decisions.
Secondly, Peter Clark, in a July 31,
1997 letter to all municipalities and
regional districts, went to great
lengths to assure host municipalities
as well as adjacent municipalities that
they can say ' no'. The message here
is that you do not need to form opposi-tion
coalitions and make a big fuss
like you did before to stop this.
We've already surrendered and will
only proceed kith those municipali-ties
which indicate, by resolution,
that they want a casino or bingo
hall.
The third big positioning issue is
that the municipal profit sharing
agreement only applies to destina-tion
casinos, not to charity casinos.
This leads to several conclusions:
1) Proponents may have more trou-ble
getting municipal approval for a
new charity casino than for a new
destination casino. This, on the
other hand, could be mitigated by
getting the support of local charities.
2) The province is obviously think-ing
' destination' as opposed to
' charity'. 3) Present charity casino
operators, particularly those in the
lucrative lower mainland, may have
less competition than first thought
( feared).
Highlights of the the RFP:
municipalities must pass reso-lutions
saying they want a
new gaming facility. Silence
will be considered a negative
response,
municipalities that indicate
they want a casino or bingo
hall will participate in the
evaluation process. ( This is a
real improvement upon the
' Ontario process' where eval-uation
committees vanish
from sight and no one, includ-ing
the host municipality,
knows what is happening.
Municipalities each day par-ticipate
in the evaluation of
competing proposals for new
Ivan Sack
shopping malls, office towers,
and hotels: why not a casino or
bingo hall?),
no communities have been
identified as sites. Proponents
make this determination them-selves.
They are responsible
for demonstrating to LAC that
they have the support of the
host community and that they
have identified and dealt with
all concerns expressed by adja-cent
communities. Interest-ingly,
LAC determines whether
concerns raised by adjacent
communities are legitimate and
whether proponents have taken
sufficient action to address
them. This neatly side- steps
opposition from the City of
Vancouver which remains a
target market and would use an
' adjacent clause' to stop its
neighbours from opening gam-ing
facilities. Vancouver has,
for example, just refused a re-quest
from the Great Canadian
Casino Company for a 3,000 sq.
ft. extension to its downtown
Holiday Inn facility. The city
claimed Great Canadian was
short 3 1 parking spaces even
though the company said it was
prepared to lease 50 spaces
nearby,
casinos will be permitted to op-erate
14 hours a day, 365 days
per year,